' This petition has been brought by Abasin International Workers Union claiming to be CBA, through its General Secretary Badaruddin for a direction to the respondents not to induce workers to cease to be members of the petitioner union, or not to participate in the activities of the union or to terminate, retrench or dismiss workers or close down whole of the establishment and conduct their affairs in a manner calculated to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practices.
2. It is not necessary to reproduce grounds on which these directions are sought because the petition is being disposed of on technical grounds.
3. Mr. M. Bashir Awan, Advocate for the respondents submitted that registration of the petitioner union as CBA by Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad was challenged before Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi who by its order dated 6-7-1988 had granted stay with the result that the order of registration of petitioner union became in-effective, the moment the order was passed. The petitioner was as such debarred from acting as CBA till disposal of the appeal. A copy of application for stay and order passed by Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi thereon has been placed on record.
4. Mr. All Ahmed, representative for the petitioner made following submissions:
(i) That the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal is not binding on this Commission; and
(ii) That stay order having not been served upon petitioner, the petition was competently filed and can be legitimately continued. In his submission stay and 'injunction' arc synonymous.
5. Mr. All Ahmed seems to have conveniently ignored the fact that although the orders are not binding on this Commission, the same are binding on the parties to the case in which the orders are passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal.
6. The contention of Mr. Ali Ahmed, synonymy of 'Stay' and 'Injunction' is also devoid of substance.
The stay order comes into effect the moment it is passed whereas the order of injunction takes effect on service on the party concerned. If an authority be needed reference may be had to Haji Khalil v. Javed Ahmed (1983 SCMR 869) wherein it was held. "Stay order takes effect from time it is passed, irrespective of fact whether or not it has been served on person concerned".
7. Having disposed of the two preliminary objections of Mr. Ali Ahmed, Advocate, the next question for consideration would be the effect of the order of Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, on these proceedings.
8. Representative for the petitioner has not disputed genuineness of the copy of orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal produced by the respondents. The respondents had applied to the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi for stay in the following terms: "That this Humble Tribunal may be pleased to grant stay and direct the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad not to give effect to his order of registration of respondent No, 1 union and also directions be issued to respondent No, 1 union not to act as CBA till such time as the above appeal is decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal."
' On this application the learned Tribunal passed the following order: 6th July.
1988.
' Heard Mr. Mehmood Ghani. The order as prayed. Sd/- Appellate Tribunal
9. The contents of above application for stay show that it envisaged two orders of different nature.
The first one was to have the effect of certificate of registration issued by Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad stayed; and the second one was in the nature of injunction restraining the petitioner from the acting as CBA. The Tribunal granted both the prayers.
10. It would thus appear that while the portion of order granting injunction would take effect from the date of service on the petitioner, the order of stay regarding certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of Trad Unions took B effect as soon as it was passed. The petition was filed on 9-7- 1988 when petitioner's certificate of registration was already under suspension. The petition was therefore incompetently filed and merits dismissal out right.
11. Mr. Ali Ahmed, thereupon contended that every registered Trade Union shall be body corporate by the name under which it is registered and shall be competent to sue or be sued by the said name as envisaged by section 14 of the I.R.O. Since this union is registered it can sue as such.
12. From the petition it appears that the union was formed on 11-3-1988. Thereafter, General Secretary of the Union applied for registration on 16-3-1988 before the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad but sent written intimation of the formation of the union to the respondent on 4-4-1988.
Immediately thereafter the incidents mentioned in the body of the petition are alleged to have taken place. It thus appears that the application filed by the General Secretary on 16-3-1988 was not only the application for registration of the union, but there being no other union in the establishment, it was also meant to be for registration as CBA. There is no proof that union was registered otherwise. A union which is not registered or whose certificate of registration has been suspended, cannot sue as such union under section 14 of the I.R.O., 1969.
' For the reasons stated above the petition is dismissed as incompetent. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.